THROUGH THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE
by Jeremy Chance Springfield
12/1/2025
Man’s hope is not in the glimmer of gold to light our way forward. A meaningful future cannot be entered by gates flung wide through the comforts of wealth. Rather, woven through humanity’s heart is a heavenly thread tying us to the endless worth of the Creator’s eternal realm. Although we are impoverished from the thievery of sin, a supernal prosperity awaits in the destiny He has planned.
A divine beckoning summons us to trust in His sufficient provision for our lives, revealing that the pursuit of wealth is a poor aim for the focus of our faith. The journey to eternal riches must be made with childlike faith that He will give what is needed to bring us to the heavenly goal. Let us only set our hearts on the Kingdom and prepare ourselves through obedience to His commandments.
A divine beckoning summons us to trust in His sufficient provision for our lives, revealing that the pursuit of wealth is a poor aim for the focus of our faith. The journey to eternal riches must be made with childlike faith that He will give what is needed to bring us to the heavenly goal. Let us only set our hearts on the Kingdom and prepare ourselves through obedience to His commandments.
In His Torah are all the treasures required to take us to our eternal destination. The Word is a caravan of riches bearing a bounty more valuable than earthly affluence. We must let go of anything deviating us from a simplistic assurance in our Creator and instead embrace His providing Presence.
Yeshua taught this in a superbly rich way, recorded first in Matthew 19:16-22.
|
16 And one [young man] came, drew near, and said to him, “Good teacher, what that is good shall I perform that there shall be for me life that is everlasting?”
17 But he said to him, “Why do you call me good? None is good, except if one—the Deity! Yet, if you are desiring that you should enter to life, you must keep the commandments!” 18 He said to him, “Which?” Yet, Yeshua, he said to him, “You shall not murder, and you shall not adulterate, and you shall not steal, and you shall not testify a false witness, 19 and value your father and your mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him, “These all I have kept from my youth. What do I lack?” 21 Yeshua said to him, “If you desire perfection, you must go! Sell your possession and you must give to the poor, and there shall be for you treasures in the heavens—and you must come after me!” 22 But the young man, he heard this word, and went while grieving, for there was for him many possessions. |
|
This wealthy young man questions Messiah about how he can add eternal life to his hoard of earthly fortune. Yeshua unveils the path to the Kingdom: a faithful life legitimized by obeying the Word, quoting from Exodus 20 & Leviticus 19:18.
The young man confesses fealty to the Word yet seeks counsel for his abiding inadequacy. Yeshua infers the sole goal of this man’s soul is not entering the Kingdom—but rather, a longing to be perfect. Kingdom inclusion involves the leniency of covenant graces. Perfection, however, demands something beyond obedience: it insists on self-sacrifice. Yeshua challenges to relinquish wealth in exchange for heavenly treasures, investing himself as a dedicated disciple.
What he had hoped to be an eternal transaction brought no gain, ending with the young man withdrawing wordlessly, letting his sorrow speak for him. Reliance on his riches was a burden preventing the perfection he sought.
The young man confesses fealty to the Word yet seeks counsel for his abiding inadequacy. Yeshua infers the sole goal of this man’s soul is not entering the Kingdom—but rather, a longing to be perfect. Kingdom inclusion involves the leniency of covenant graces. Perfection, however, demands something beyond obedience: it insists on self-sacrifice. Yeshua challenges to relinquish wealth in exchange for heavenly treasures, investing himself as a dedicated disciple.
What he had hoped to be an eternal transaction brought no gain, ending with the young man withdrawing wordlessly, letting his sorrow speak for him. Reliance on his riches was a burden preventing the perfection he sought.
Thus begins Yeshua’s bountiful response, preserved in Matthew 19:23-26.
|
23 Yet, Yeshua said to his students, “Surely, I say to you that it is tough for a wealthy [man] to enter to the Kingdom of the Heavens!
24 Yet again, I say to you that it is easier for a GAMLA to enter in the hole of the sewing needle, than the wealthy [man] to enter unto the Kingdom of the Deity!” 25 Yet, the students, when they heard, were quite hurt, and they said, “Who then is capable to live?” 26 Yeshua gazed at them, and said to them, “For the sons of men, this is not capable; yet, for the Deity, every thing is capable.” |
Yeshua’s extreme lament about the challenge facing those with wealth shocked his disciples, whom he then encourages with a reminder of the Creator’s power.
Varied claims have been made by commentators about exactly what was meant in the imagery he presented. Before exploring his meaning, however, we must first address a popular explanation that has been proven to be false.
The claim concerns “the eye of the needle.” The assertion is that in Jerusalem’s walls existed a narrow entry accessed after the main gates were sealed at night for security concerns. Pilgrims arriving thereafter used that corridor, forcing their trusted means of travel—be it donkey, steed, or camel—the inconvenience of unburdening to enter the “eye of the needle.” The difficulty of divesting their goods is akin to the reluctance of the wealthy in letting go of relying on riches.
The claim concerns “the eye of the needle.” The assertion is that in Jerusalem’s walls existed a narrow entry accessed after the main gates were sealed at night for security concerns. Pilgrims arriving thereafter used that corridor, forcing their trusted means of travel—be it donkey, steed, or camel—the inconvenience of unburdening to enter the “eye of the needle.” The difficulty of divesting their goods is akin to the reluctance of the wealthy in letting go of relying on riches.
The simple truth is that no such gate ever existed in Jerusalem. The Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament mention different gates of the city, but reliable evidence for it is absent in the archeological and historical records. Without any proof, the “eye of the needle” has pierced the subconscious of Christendom and woven its way into the safety of accepted tradition.
The view is traced to the 11th century Benedictine monk, Anselm of Canterbury (later Archbishop of Canterbury). A gloss of his claim is found in Thomas Aquinas’ Catena aura on Matthew 19:24 from the 13th century.
The view is traced to the 11th century Benedictine monk, Anselm of Canterbury (later Archbishop of Canterbury). A gloss of his claim is found in Thomas Aquinas’ Catena aura on Matthew 19:24 from the 13th century.
Anselm’s idea was shared also in the 13th century by the French Dominican, Hugh of Saint-Cher, in one of his Postillae.
It is again encountered in the writings of Johannis Poloner, who wrote of it in the 15th century in his descriptio Terra Sanctae.
The erroneous explanation was repeated until it became such a strongly established lore that it was eventually assumed to be historical fact.
However, the question remains: how did such a demonstrably false notion ever form in the first place? No definitive answer exists, but a possible source is preserved in curious parallels found in rabbinic texts.
In the Talmud, Eruvin 53a, we read about the contrast between substantially wide doors and the diminutive opening of a needle’s eye.
A second example of a needle’s eye and an entry is in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 5:2.
A third source is preserved in the Zohar, Emor 95a.
These sources show the Jewish emphasis from antiquity of a conceptual contrast between wide gates and a needle’s narrow opening. It is more likely that the concept existed in the form of a proverbial adage, which over time developed into a notion about a small gate that was never meant to be taken literally.
Returning to Yeshua’s words in Matthew 19:24, the imagery can be further examined. Most translations include the word “camel.” This is from the Greek manuscript's use of KAMELON.
The basic idea is that: “it is easier for a camel to enter in the hole of the sewing needle” is hyperbole. Verse 26 reinforces that it is unimaginable for a rich person to let go of trusting in wealth without a special move of the Creator.
The hyperbolic imagery emphasizes Yeshua as a rabbi teaching similarly to his peers. This is evident in that the rabbis used the expression “eye of the needle” in conjunction with an animal to emphasize the impossibility of a given matter.
The hyperbolic imagery emphasizes Yeshua as a rabbi teaching similarly to his peers. This is evident in that the rabbis used the expression “eye of the needle” in conjunction with an animal to emphasize the impossibility of a given matter.
The Talmud, Berachot 55b, mentions a person not dreaming of bizarre things.
It is also used in the Talmud, Bava Metzia 38b in a mocking manner in response to an unlikely possible answer to an issue that was in discussion.
These examples come from Babylonian amoraim. The immense elephant—an animal well-known in those lands—made for a perfect contrast for the intended hyperbole. Similarly, a camel—common in the land of Israel—also makes sense, as it was the largest animal commonly encountered in that area. Either way, the concept is upheld: the rabbis used the phrase “the eye of the needle” to speak about a seemingly impossible situation.
While these factors provide logical contextual background for the use of KAMELON, a claim exists that the word was not intended to be read as “camel.” The proposal involves the spelling of KAMILON, which means “thick rope.”
Despite slightly different spelling the terms are pronounced nearly identically. The question, then, is what was the intended meaning of the Greek? The answer is not easily given because the situation is more complex than it appears.
It was Cyril of Alexandria, writing during the 5th century, who made the earliest suggestion that the Greek term KAMELON was not supposed to be understood as “camel,” but “thick rope.” He gave no explanation for how he knew this, but the claim is preserved in the compilation of Patrologia Graeca on Matthew 19:24.
It was Cyril of Alexandria, writing during the 5th century, who made the earliest suggestion that the Greek term KAMELON was not supposed to be understood as “camel,” but “thick rope.” He gave no explanation for how he knew this, but the claim is preserved in the compilation of Patrologia Graeca on Matthew 19:24.
He also suggested the same in that text when he commented on Luke 18:25.
The form of KAMILON “thick rope” instead of KAMELON “camel” has only one other recorded instance in antiquity, and that is in a scholium (marginal note) of a copy of the Greek playwright Aristophanes’ play called Wasps, in line 1035.
While the actual date of this marginalia is uncertain, it may have arisen in the 4th century. What is important is that the reading KAMELOU in the play itself unquestionably meant “of a camel,” and not “of a thick rope”— as the passage comically describes a person with animalistic features.
This scholium is the only other extant attestation from antiquity of the term KAMILON as intending a “thick rope” in the Greek language. No actual Greek writer ever used the word for that meaning in any of the multitude of Greek texts now extant. Cyril’s claim and the scholium to Aristophanes’ Wasps are the only ancient citations promoting that definition.
Appearances of it are found much later, but curiously only in Greek and Latin texts from the Medieval Era—10th through the 13th centuries—and only in the account as it is preserved in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25, a factor suggesting an obvious influence from Cyril.
In this is another question requiring answering: where did the idea come from that KAMELON / KAMILON could signify a “thick rope” if no evidence exists of it being used for that definition in ancient Greek literature?
Herein factors the rendering presented of Matthew 19:24 from the Aramaic Peshitta, where I left the term GAMLA intentionally untranslated. This is because the word has two definitions in Aramaic that bear upon the topic: the widespread “camel” meaning, and—incredibly—the meaning of “thick rope!”
This scholium is the only other extant attestation from antiquity of the term KAMILON as intending a “thick rope” in the Greek language. No actual Greek writer ever used the word for that meaning in any of the multitude of Greek texts now extant. Cyril’s claim and the scholium to Aristophanes’ Wasps are the only ancient citations promoting that definition.
Appearances of it are found much later, but curiously only in Greek and Latin texts from the Medieval Era—10th through the 13th centuries—and only in the account as it is preserved in the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25, a factor suggesting an obvious influence from Cyril.
In this is another question requiring answering: where did the idea come from that KAMELON / KAMILON could signify a “thick rope” if no evidence exists of it being used for that definition in ancient Greek literature?
Herein factors the rendering presented of Matthew 19:24 from the Aramaic Peshitta, where I left the term GAMLA intentionally untranslated. This is because the word has two definitions in Aramaic that bear upon the topic: the widespread “camel” meaning, and—incredibly—the meaning of “thick rope!”
This identical Aramaic usage for “camel” and “thick rope” is contextually obvious, for in Middle Eastern cultures it was common to make textiles from camel hair. Camel-hair rope was valued due to its resistance to moisture. The link from “camel” to “rope,” therefore, is entirely logical in the Aramaic language.
The 10th century Biblical scholar, Hasan Bar-Bahlul, preserved the validity of the alternate definition of GAMLA as “thick rope” through indisputable description in his monumental work, Lexicon Syriacum.
The 10th century Biblical scholar, Hasan Bar-Bahlul, preserved the validity of the alternate definition of GAMLA as “thick rope” through indisputable description in his monumental work, Lexicon Syriacum.
This context in his explanation of GAMLA reinforces the moisture-resistant nature of camel hair and its suitability for making ropes for nautical settings.
The singular term of GAMLA wields the dual definition of “camel” and “rope”—a truth attested to in ancient Aramaic texts. This detail makes it preferable over the paucity of KAMILON “thick rope” that essentially never appears in Greek texts beyond what Cyril first cited. In fact, GAMLA meaning both “camel” and “rope” provides the logical answer that has eluded explanation as to how Cyril of Alexandria arrived at his claim that KAMELON should be read as “rope” instead of “camel.” Cyril likely devised the version of KAMILON to distinguish for his readers that he was referencing the dual nature of the Aramaic term GAMLA and his assertion of it meaning “thick rope” in that Gospel passage.
The reality is that the term KAMELON comes from the Aramaic GAMLA “camel.” The Aramaic language—in its antiquated and pervasive presence in the Middle East—used the term prior to the Greeks, where it was adopted as a loanword from the older Aramaic tongue. The fact that the Aramaic GAMLA has the same two meanings that are used prolifically in ancient Aramaic literature—when contrasted with the fact that the Greek only has evidence for KAMELON as “camel” and an unsupported claim that it means “thick rope”—reveals the logical route to explanation is it came from the Aramaic tongue and never actually meant “thick rope” as an independently existing Greek word.
The idea that Yeshua intended GAMLA to mean “rope” is also supported by the Old Armenian version of the New Testament. Created from the Aramaic Peshitta by Mesrop Mashtots and Sahak of Armenia in the early 5th century, its native Aramaic-speaking translators understood GAMLA in its “rope” sense, for they chose the Armenian MALKHOY “cable” to represent the Peshitta’s term.
The reality is that the term KAMELON comes from the Aramaic GAMLA “camel.” The Aramaic language—in its antiquated and pervasive presence in the Middle East—used the term prior to the Greeks, where it was adopted as a loanword from the older Aramaic tongue. The fact that the Aramaic GAMLA has the same two meanings that are used prolifically in ancient Aramaic literature—when contrasted with the fact that the Greek only has evidence for KAMELON as “camel” and an unsupported claim that it means “thick rope”—reveals the logical route to explanation is it came from the Aramaic tongue and never actually meant “thick rope” as an independently existing Greek word.
The idea that Yeshua intended GAMLA to mean “rope” is also supported by the Old Armenian version of the New Testament. Created from the Aramaic Peshitta by Mesrop Mashtots and Sahak of Armenia in the early 5th century, its native Aramaic-speaking translators understood GAMLA in its “rope” sense, for they chose the Armenian MALKHOY “cable” to represent the Peshitta’s term.
The “thick rope” definition made enough logical sense in the context for it to be translated as the likeliest meaning of Yeshua’s words.
By preferring the Aramaic Peshitta’s term over the Greek, the bizarre situation of KAMELON / KAMILON is resolvable, yet the question remains: what did Yeshua originally intend by GAMLA?
The resolution is a harmonization that displays Yeshua’s creative genius, for it makes sense he meant GAMLA in both of its definitions at the same time.
The notion is that the mention of “the sewing needle” would cause GAMLA to be interpreted as a “thick rope” woven from thinner threads, forcing it to be unwound until losing is previous value just to pass through the eye of the needle.
Then the term “wealthy [man]” was read, where GAMLA may have been reconsidered as “camel”—transportation of the elite in 1st century Middle Eastern cultures. The rabbinic hyperbole of a large animal forced through the eye of a needle was also a likely consideration since it was being uttered by a rabbi.
To appreciate this harmonization, we need a better understanding of the context of the matter and some aspects of Jewish culture of the time. We must turn to Matthew 19:1, which sets the background for all that occurs herein.
Then the term “wealthy [man]” was read, where GAMLA may have been reconsidered as “camel”—transportation of the elite in 1st century Middle Eastern cultures. The rabbinic hyperbole of a large animal forced through the eye of a needle was also a likely consideration since it was being uttered by a rabbi.
To appreciate this harmonization, we need a better understanding of the context of the matter and some aspects of Jewish culture of the time. We must turn to Matthew 19:1, which sets the background for all that occurs herein.
|
And it was that when Yeshua had completed these words, he moved on from Galila, and came to the border of Yihud, to the crossing of the Yurdnan. |
|
The dominant feature of the landscape in Matthew 19, then, is the Jordan River and its crossing site. This is worth noting because the river was not spanned by sturdy bridges until many years later in its Roman occupation. Fording requires crossing in safe shallows, or, in certain areas, to be ferried over by a rope system, or else to simply use such ropes as a rope-bridge to cross the river with care. This is what the text means by the crossing [site] of the Jordan river.
This is mentioned in the Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot 112a.
The use of ferries on the Jordan river was uncommon, with one occurrence found in 2nd Samuel 19:18. It would have been likelier to encounter rope-bridges at access sites when the flow was still too deep to safely traverse. Rabbinic texts mention them in the Talmud, Kiddushin 81a, as well as in tractate Beitzah 7b. The Talmud, Moed Katan 6b, lists three types of “bridges” that may span a river.
The Talmud’s word for “rope-bridge” in the passages quoted here is MITZRA, but this passage also includes the word GAMLA, which is translated as “walk-board” according to its third definition of “wooden beam.”
These examples suggest that Yeshua’s teaching at the Jordan river crossing was planned to influence how his listeners understood his use of the word GAMLA.
To add to the setting and the rope-bridges likely spanning the crossing is the fact that Yeshua was speaking with his disciples—seven of whom were fishermen (Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Philip, Bartholomew, and Thomas). They would have been familiar with ropes of all sizes for their nets, lines, and sailing equipment as they worked upon the Sea of Galilee. These factors are all inherent in the context of the account and would influence how the disciples comprehended what Yeshua said.
Continuing on, the content of Matthew 19:3-12 appears to divert to a topic unrelated to the rest of the chapter—but it helps set up what is to come. It concerns the subtleties of what constitute spiritually justifiable divorce. Yeshua gives his stance in 19:6.
|
Then, they were not two, but one body. The thing, therefore, that the Deity has paired the son of man shall not separate. |
After the disciples bemoan the revelation of the high responsibility entailed in the union of marriage, Yeshua clarifies in 19:11 an important factor about it.
|
Yet, he said to them, “Not every man is sufficient for this word—only he to whom it is given.” |
|
Only some believers have what is needed to approach the unity of marriage from a Divine perspective. He does this using the term SAFEK “sufficient.”
This “sufficient” definition has its literal meaning as “joined,” where the term describes two things pressed so closely that they are fused together. This is of interest in that the Talmud Yerushalmi, in Shabbat 5:2, speaks of the situation on the Sabbath of benefitting from an animal upon which were two ropes BIMSAFEIK “when joined,” that were then halachically viewed as one rope.
The term SAFEK can also be used in the sense of “affording” a desired thing. The idea links to Yeshua’s words that not every believer is equipped with what is needed for marriage, and to enter such a covenant while lacking in those areas would be irresponsible. This “affording” aspect appears to be intended to prepare the disciples for his claims a few verses later about the rich man possessing the higher wealth to afford to let go of depending on earthly riches.
While SAFEK signifies “having enough” of a thing, it also has a variant meaning of “to be emptied out.” This applies in that not all believers have released enough ego to unite with their spouse in the way divinely intended. Marriage is a treasure when both seek the goals for which it was first created. This is why Proverbs 31:10 extols a wife of sincere virtue as worth more than jewels. This approach likewise sets up the link to Yeshua’s words about the rich man letting go of the pride of his riches to trust instead in the Holy One for provision in life.
While SAFEK signifies “having enough” of a thing, it also has a variant meaning of “to be emptied out.” This applies in that not all believers have released enough ego to unite with their spouse in the way divinely intended. Marriage is a treasure when both seek the goals for which it was first created. This is why Proverbs 31:10 extols a wife of sincere virtue as worth more than jewels. This approach likewise sets up the link to Yeshua’s words about the rich man letting go of the pride of his riches to trust instead in the Holy One for provision in life.
Yeshua’s inference that marriage isn’t for everyone ends uncomfortably in 19:12.
|
For eunuchs exist who from the womb of their mother are born thusly, and eunuchs exist who from the sons of man are [made] eunuchs, and eunuchs exist who made themselves eunuchs on account of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able for it to be sufficient, it shall be sufficient. |
The willingness for the self-sacrifice of personal pleasure is emphasized by the initial mention of “eunuchs.” However, a deeper nuance is embedded in these words that is only appreciable as we read it from the Aramaic of the Peshitta.
This is found in the term translated as “eunuch”—MEHAMNA. It only has that meaning as the context demands—beyond that, it literally means “a believer.”
A “believer” is the primary notion for “eunuch”—one trustworthy in matters where sexual purity is a priority. Yeshua created from this a seamless wordplay for his disciples. Although they were not eunuchs, they were believers living a life of trust where they had to make hard choices impacting their journey. This context provides the thread that weaves through the incidents in this chapter.
The topic transitions from marriage to that of children with Matthew 19:13-15.
|
13 Then they drew near to him youths, that he should place his hand upon them, and should pray. And his students reproved them.
14 Yet, Yeshua, he said, “You must allow the youths to come unto me, and you shall not restrain them, for of those who are as these is the Kingdom of the Heavens! 15 And he placed his hand upon them and went from there. |
|
Yeshua recognized the value of the young hearts. They know little about the challenges of life. They trust their parents to provide. Those fit for the Kingdom must be of childlike faith. This sentiment is important as it later bears upon the matter of the rich man and his inability to let go of trusting in his fortune.
Before exploring how this claim of the Kingdom-sensitive nature of children aligns with the broader account, it must be stated that although the precise age of the youths is omitted, there is a term in the Hebrew Scriptures for very young children who are no longer viewed as infants, known as GAMOL “weaned child.”
This word is applicable because of Yeshua’s GAMLA usage of several verses later.
Claiming children hold spiritual merit is echoed in the Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 104a.
Claiming children hold spiritual merit is echoed in the Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 104a.
Using the order of the Hebrew alphabet, the children elicited insights from terms beginning with the respective letters. They especially claimed the letters Gimel and Dalet signified GEMOL DALLIM “[the rich] give bountifully to the poor.”
Matthew 19:13-15 has Yeshua declaring the youths are fit for the Kingdom. Their trust rewards them with the necessary sustenance of heavenly provision. They embody GEMOL DALLIM “[the rich] give bountifully to the poor.” This is implied in GEMOL, an inflection of GAMAL meaning “give” or “reward.”
The reason this detail matters is that the Hebrew term for “camel” is GAMAL, which has but a subtle vocal distinction from the word GAMAL “give” / “reward.”
These complex implications exist due to Yeshua’s clever use of GAMLA.
In a curious account from the Talmud Bavli, Chullin 95b, we see the mention of a camel burdened down and the subsequent connection a child has to the topic.
In a curious account from the Talmud Bavli, Chullin 95b, we see the mention of a camel burdened down and the subsequent connection a child has to the topic.
These parallels show that a youth is likely of a purer spiritual insight than the complexities complicating an adult’s attempt at navigating the uncertainties of life. The contact with the youths prepared the way for what was about to happen.
They leave and Yeshua is met by a rich young man observant in Torah—yet knowing he is incomplete. Yeshua’s evaluation is that he seeks GEMIRA “perfection.” The Aramaic term is literally “maturity”—a thing fully developed.
They leave and Yeshua is met by a rich young man observant in Torah—yet knowing he is incomplete. Yeshua’s evaluation is that he seeks GEMIRA “perfection.” The Aramaic term is literally “maturity”—a thing fully developed.
In this thread of young children unexpectedly fit for the Kingdom and the rich young man seeking “maturity” who is not fit for it, the concepts take shape. The youths unconcerned for money are of the proper mindset, while the wealthy young man seeking the maturity he lacks is the one who is truly poor.
The Hebrew word for “poor” is DALAL, yet its literal definition is “thin.”
Knowing a GAMLA “thick rope” would require unraveling into thin strings, the “rich” / “poor” notion becomes clearer. This idea is infused into Yeshua’s words, for in 19:24 he says DADLIL “that it is easier” for the GAMLA to enter the eye of the needle—using an inflection of the Aramaic DELIL “easy.”
The conceptual link is that a thing that is “thin” is insubstantial and easy to handle—just like how society views the poor. The appearance of DADLIL “that it is easier” cannot but recall the “poor” aspect of the term in the Aramaic of the verse: DADLIL HU LEGAMLA “that it is easier for a camel / thick rope…”
In all this is a further astounding parallel, as the pronunciation DALIL—rather than DELIL “poor” / “thin”—yields the alternate definition of “wound string.”
In proximity to GAMLA “thick rope” is DELIL “easier,” whose definition of DALIL just so happens to be “wound string.” What a masterful wordsmith Yeshua was to craft such meaningful responses in real time that were appreciable in multiple ways.
The incident ends in Matthew 19:27-30 with wonderfully relevant details to the in-depth topic of heavenly rewards for earthly commitment to the Creator.
|
27 Afterwards, Kifa replied, and said to him, “See! we have left every thing, and have come after you! What, then, shall be for us?”
28 Yeshua said to them, “Surely, I say to you that you who have come after me, in the new world, when that the Son of Man sits upon his throne of glory, you shall sit also upon twelve thrones, and you shall judge the twelve tribes of Eesra’el! 29 And every man who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or sons, or fields, on account of my name, one hundred-fold shall he receive, and life everlasting he shall inherit! 30 Yet, many of the first shall be the last, and the last, the first!” |
The disciples had done exactly what Yeshua told the rich young man to do to experience “perfection” / “maturity.” Peter brings this to attention, and this detail of him speaking for the disciples holds a surprising wordplay.
It must be clarified that Peter is a Greek term translating the Aramaic KIFA, meaning “rock.”
This definition can be broadened so that KIFA can also signify a “precious stone” if the context is that of treasure. This links to Matthew 19 of the wealthy divesting themselves from their fortunes for entrance to the Kingdom, and of Peter recalling the disciples had also left their trades for a heavenly reward.
The same term, if pronounced as KEIFA, can also mean “arched entryway.”
This aspect parallels the needle and “wide gate” contrast previously mentioned as a rabbinic adage. The links affirm that the elements of the account preserve a truly ordained incident that still resonates impactfully to modern hearts.
A final parallel can be noted in the detail that it was Kifa who reminded Yeshua that the disciples had essentially done what the rich man had failed to do. This lay in the fact that the Aramaic term KUFA means specifically “eye of a needle.”
A final parallel can be noted in the detail that it was Kifa who reminded Yeshua that the disciples had essentially done what the rich man had failed to do. This lay in the fact that the Aramaic term KUFA means specifically “eye of a needle.”
While from a different root than KIFA, the affinity of phonetics signals a link. For the only disciple named in the chapter to be Peter cannot be unintentional.
Yeshua’s ministry took him to this moment rich with eternal relevance and potential wordplays to teach vital truths. Adequately appreciating all the implications threaded throughout the chapter means no one definition can be seized upon to provide a single best interpretation for the text. Depending on how one views the polysemous nature of his word choices, subtle details emerge and blend together to create a complex tapestry of dense meaning that can be meditated upon in different ways.
The Creator’s ultimate desire for His people is to appreciate the eternal reward that awaits us and therefore to act with dedicated sincerity to do whatever it takes to make that future a certainty. We must diligently lace our faith through the eye of the needle and trust Him like a child to weave what we need on our journey to His Kingdom.
All study contents Copyright Jeremy Chance Springfield, except for graphics and images, which are Copyright their respective creators.